Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Simulation

Analytical Error Analysis of Clifford Gates by the Fault-Path Tracer Method

arXiv
Authors: Smitha Janardan, Yu Tomita, Mauricio Gutierrez, Kenneth R. Brown

Year

2015

Paper ID

4525

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

96

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We estimate the success probability of quantum protocols composed of Clifford operations in the presence of Pauli errors. Our method is derived from the fault-point formalism previously used to determine the success rate of low-distance error correction codes. Here we apply it to a wider range of quantum protocols and identify circuit structures that allow for efficient calculation of the exact success probability and even the final distribution of output states. As examples, we apply our method to the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm and the Steane [[7,1,3]] quantum error correction code and compare the results to Monte Carlo simulations.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We estimate the success probability of quantum protocols composed of Clifford operations in the presence of Pauli errors.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #4525 #78846 Analog quantum simulation of Sh... #78810 Secure Quantum Handshakes: Quan... #78802 Quantum Co-Design of Inhomogene... #78801 Constructing Large and Structur...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.